Boddy CWR (16 Viewers)

[Nick]

Try this quote from Eastwood, Nick.

"We further understand that the basis of the complaint to the EU is very similar in all matters of substance to the recent court actions, questions those court decisions and seeks remedial action.

"Regrettably, this means that the condition set out above for us to enter or continue discussions with CCFC has not been met. The ball is therefore back in the court of CCFC's owners.

"We believe it is in everyone's interest that Coventry City play their home games at the Ricoh Arena, and we would urge the owners of Coventry City to take steps to make that happen."

Talks continued, not talks started. As they'd begun, it probably made some sense to see what could still be done. Wasps position is very clear though.

The fact they've proceeded doesn't imply the EU think something is wrong they think it's worth investigating if something is.

You continue to be steadfast in trying to avoid putting any blame on SISU though Nick. They submitted the complaint, knowing full well it would be impactful. They hid the complaint hoping to get a deal signed before it became public.

Strange, Wasps said that the EU stuff was irrelevant.

Again, Wasps are only at risk IF the council are found to be in the wrong. At the moment the EU are still deciding whether to even investigate it aren't they? They only will IF they think there is something wrong and it needs to be investigated which means they think that CCC have done something wrong.

You continue trying to justify and defend a Rugby club from 80 miles away kicking us out to impress your council chums for likes. Duggins isn't going to be your mate.

 

---

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Try this quote from Eastwood, Nick.

"We further understand that the basis of the complaint to the EU is very similar in all matters of substance to the recent court actions, questions those court decisions and seeks remedial action.

"Regrettably, this means that the condition set out above for us to enter or continue discussions with CCFC has not been met. The ball is therefore back in the court of CCFC's owners.

"We believe it is in everyone's interest that Coventry City play their home games at the Ricoh Arena, and we would urge the owners of Coventry City to take steps to make that happen."

Talks continued, not talks started. As they'd begun, it probably made some sense to see what could still be done. Wasps position is very clear though.

The fact they've proceeded doesn't imply the EU think something is wrong they think it's worth investigating if something is.

You continue to be steadfast in trying to avoid putting any blame on SISU though Nick. They submitted the complaint, knowing full well it would be impactful. They hid the complaint hoping to get a deal signed before it became public.

They say the gal is in the court of Coventry City’s owners.

If the complaint can’t be withdrawn, how is it in SISU’s court?

 

[chiefdave]

I made the point that "there would be no deal whilst there were legals" and you decided it was important to state "They aren't legals from ccfc or sisu. They would be EU against ccc.", with a deliberate lack of context. Who submitted the case to the EU Nick? Do you have something to suggest or prove that the EU would have acted unilaterally to investigate, without a complaint being submitted by SISU?

You're, I suspect deliberately, completely missing the point. Yes, SISU have made a complaint to the EC but that complaint can only proceed if the EC decides there is something that merits investigation. If, as some people insist is true, there is no case to answer it simply won't proceed to investigation and therefore the EC will not take any legal action against CCC.

I guess not. It's a SISU led legal complaint that the EU are legally obliged to act on. No complaint from SISU, no EU action.

I'm interested in where you have established that the EC is legally obliged to conduct an investigation given that everything that has been reported and every expert who has given their opinion has stated that it is for the EC to decide if there is a case to answer and if, and only if, there is it will proceed.

This legal action, confirmed as "legals" by both Boddy and Fisher, have halted discussions between CCFC and Wasps. That is also a fact.

The 'legal action' as you insist on calling it, has not caused discussions between CCFC and Wasps to halt. Not sure how you can assert that to be fact when both sides involved have stated it not to be the case.

We'd be playing at the Ricoh if the EU complaint hadn't been submitted.

Nobody, including yourself, can know if that is true or not.

As I've said many times before there's enough sticks to beat SISU with, no need for people to make things up. Just makes it easy for them to wriggle out of things as they can bat this sort of thing away all day.

 

[chiefdave]

"Regrettably, this means that the condition set out above for us to enter or continue discussions with CCFC has not been met. The ball is therefore back in the court of CCFC's owners.

What about his later statement where he says that wasn't the issue?

“Talks began in April and we entered those discussions in good faith. Since then we have been working to get that deal over the line and we did not halt discussions even when it emerged that the owners had filed a complaint to the European Commission as far back as February but not informed us of that.

“Despite significant progress being made in the discussions, we have unfortunately been unable to reach an agreement with the owners which, putting aside the complaint to the European Commission, would deliver the fundamental principle that there would be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.

What is your opinion on the fact that the club met the original terms imposed by Wasps only for Wasps to then change them to include indemnification. A requirement the club will not, and should not, ever meet.

Or do you believe that if Wasps and / or CCC are found to be in the wrong any punishment should fall to the football club?

They submitted the complaint, knowing full well it would be impactful. They hid the complaint hoping to get a deal signed before it became public.

The complaint is against CCC not Wasps. I don't know why so many people struggle with such a simple concept. Follow through the process and the only possible way Wasps can be impacted is if they, or CCC, are found to be in the wrong. Why would any of our fans justify their actions if that turns out to be the case?

 

[Orca]

When is the court case then? Show us where wasps are named in a current court case. Ill wait

You'll have a long wait. However, if you read the detail on the EU Commission website, you'll find the talking about how their work is to apply judgement based on the law and that if a party doesn't agree with the judgement, an appeal (based on point of law) can be heard in the EU court. Why are you so desparate to cling to it *not* being legal action? The key parties have all stated that it is.

 

[Orca]

Strange, Wasps said that the EU stuff was irrelevant.

Again, Wasps are only at risk IF the council are found to be in the wrong. At the moment the EU are still deciding whether to even investigate it aren't they? They only will IF they think there is something wrong and it needs to be investigated which means they think that CCC have done something wrong.

You continue trying to justify and defend a Rugby club from 80 miles away kicking us out to impress your council chums for likes. Duggins isn't going to be your mate.

Where am I defending Wasps Nick?

I still find it amusing that you think I'm doing this to in some way impress someone who I think is a bit of a knob. You just can't get away from thinking that I'm in some way in cahoots with the Council. It's brilliantly batty. Even Grendel, having found out my name, worked out that just isn't true. You not liking my opinions on things, doesn't mean I'm some sort of Council secret agent.

 

[Orca]

What about his later statement where he says that wasn't the issue?

What is your opinion on the fact that the club met the original terms imposed by Wasps only for Wasps to then change them to include indemnification. A requirement the club will not, and should not, ever meet.

Or do you believe that if Wasps and / or CCC are found to be in the wrong any punishment should fall to the football club?

The complaint is against CCC not Wasps. I don't know why so many people struggle with such a simple concept. Follow through the process and the only possible way Wasps can be impacted is if they, or CCC, are found to be in the wrong. Why would any of our fans justify their actions if that turns out to be the case?

I've already stated many times I think the indemnity is a stupid thing to do and I don't agree with it. I can however, see why they've done it.

When you say the club met the original terms, I'm not sure that's true. Wasps asked for an end to all legals and that there would be no more cases regarding the sale of the Ricoh. Did SISU agree to that? It doesn't appear that they did.

 

[clint van damme]

I've already stated many times I think the indemnity is a stupid thing to do and I don't agree with it. I can however, see why they've done it.

When you say the club met the original terms, I'm not sure that's true. Wasps asked for an end to all legals and that there would be no more cases regarding the sale of the Ricoh. Did SISU agree to that? It doesn't appear that they did.

What reason do you think they have for doing it? I can see why they requested it certainly, but I can't see any salient reason why they dug their heels in once it became clear it wasn't going to happen.

They are denying themselves, their Ricoh partners and local businesses much needed income as well as hurting the football club for something that is now irreversible.

 

[Nick]

Where am I defending Wasps Nick?

I still find it amusing that you think I'm doing this to in some way impress someone who I think is a bit of a knob. You just can't get away from thinking that I'm in some way in cahoots with the Council. It's brilliantly batty. Even Grendel, having found out my name, worked out that just isn't true. You not liking my opinions on things, doesn't mean I'm some sort of Council secret agent.

Jumping on as many posts as you can on a football forum trying to excuse them for it while not bothering with football kind of makes it obvious.

I have never said you work for the council or anything like it, please stop talking shit.

 

[rob9872]

The thing is with the deal if they sign it they could go after them personally and no way they would do that . If they don't sign it we lose out, local businesses lose out, Wasps lose out, Council loses out etc etc etc

At this point it must simply be a dick waving contest, as there is no financial benefit to Wasps by us playing outside of the city, but there is a financial benefit for them for us to return. Why as a club struggling for revenue, would you not welcome us back despite any ongoing legal avenues? They pushed to the limit and we called their bluff on it and went. Surely now it's time to pull their big boy pants up and sort something out for the benefit of all parties.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

The thing is with the deal if they sign it they could go after them personally and no way they would do that . If they don't sign it we lose out, local businesses lose out, Wasps lose out, Council loses out etc etc etc

At this point it must simply be a dick waving contest, as there is no financial benefit to Wasps by us playing outside of the city, but there is a financial benefit for them for us to return. Why as a club struggling for revenue, would you not welcome us back despite any ongoing legal avenues? They pushed to the limit and we called their bluff on it and went. Surely now it's time to pull their big boy pants up and sort something out for the benefit of all parties.

This!

 

[hopesprings]

To anyone out there that KNOWS the answer to this question. Have Sissu said they have dropped all litigation? I know the EC thing but is it that Wasps are asking them to confirm that no matter what the EC say as a result of their investigation Sissu themslves will take no further court action ?

 

[rob9872]

To anyone out there that KNOWS the answer to this question. Have Sissu said they have dropped all litigation? I know the EC thing but is it that Wasps are asking them to confirm that no matter what the EC say as a result of their investigation Sissu themslves will take no further court action ?

I don't know that for sure and I'd not trust them tbh even if it was written down in front of me as their lawyers are too clever to circumnavigate. However the deal to play and the legal challenges, must surely be separated for the mutual benefits of both parties at this stage.

 

[Nick]

To anyone out there that KNOWS the answer to this question. Have Sissu said they have dropped all litigation? I know the EC thing but is it that Wasps are asking them to confirm that no matter what the EC say as a result of their investigation Sissu themslves will take no further court action ?

Wasps said they wouldnt enter talks unless it was dropped.
It was said that they signed to say they were willing to drop it.
Wasps entered talks.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

To anyone out there that KNOWS the answer to this question. Have Sissu said they have dropped all litigation? I know the EC thing but is it that Wasps are asking them to confirm that no matter what the EC say as a result of their investigation Sissu themslves will take no further court action ?

Who knows with SISU, wouldn't trust them with a penny

 

[chiefdave]

To anyone out there that KNOWS the answer to this question. Have Sissu said they have dropped all litigation? I know the EC thing but is it that Wasps are asking them to confirm that no matter what the EC say as a result of their investigation Sissu themslves will take no further court action ?

Coventry City Football Club would like to update its supporters, following yesterday’s statement (15 May) made by Wasps.

There is no European Commission complaint against Wasps. The complaint, made by our Owners SISU in February, is against Coventry City Council only.

In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena, in order to allow talks about extending our agreement at the Ricoh Arena to take place.

Wasps stated their position publicly yesterday, reiterating their previous opposition to legal action and now adding their opposition to any other action around the sale of the stadium in 2014, and their opinions surrounding the EU complaint.

 

[Garryb80]

You'll have a long wait. However, if you read the detail on the EU Commission website, you'll find the talking about how their work is to apply judgement based on the law and that if a party doesn't agree with the judgement, an appeal (based on point of law) can be heard in the EU court. Why are you so desparate to cling to it *not* being legal action? The key parties have all stated that it is.

Because it isnt. I can only assume you are a lib dem and only beleive things when they agree withwhat you want it to.
If you cant prove there is an ongoing case them surely there isnt any legal action.

 

[shmmeee]

You're, I suspect deliberately, completely missing the point. Yes, SISU have made a complaint to the EC but that complaint can only proceed if the EC decides there is something that merits investigation. If, as some people insist is true, there is no case to answer it simply won't proceed to investigation and therefore the EC will not take any legal action against CCC.

I'm interested in where you have established that the EC is legally obliged to conduct an investigation given that everything that has been reported and every expert who has given their opinion has stated that it is for the EC to decide if there is a case to answer and if, and only if, there is it will proceed.

The 'legal action' as you insist on calling it, has not caused discussions between CCFC and Wasps to halt. Not sure how you can assert that to be fact when both sides involved have stated it not to be the case.

Nobody, including yourself, can know if that is true or not.

As I've said many times before there's enough sticks to beat SISU with, no need for people to make things up. Just makes it easy for them to wriggle out of things as they can bat this sort of thing away all day.

This argument is bollocks. You could have said the same about the JR (and probably did, many did) and we spent five years to find out there was nothing to it.

You know the legals are a negotiating tactic and not an honest issue, I know that, Wasps know that, the council know that.

Why lie? Or at the very least, why carry on with a weak argument that’s been repeatedly proven incorrect by reality?

Do we need to go over the problems with going through court even if innocent? Again?

So frustrating to see this nonsense still being spouted as a killer argument after it’s been beaten to death.

Six mother fucking years I’ve been logging on to this site to see the same people insist that the council are really really evil and any minute now it’ll all be proven in court and Sisu will be shown as innocent parties justified in their actions.

Judge after judge has slapped that down, yet each appeal, each new action, your brains are reset and away we go again.

 

[MalcSB]

Try this quote from Eastwood, Nick.

"We further understand that the basis of the complaint to the EU is very similar in all matters of substance to the recent court actions, questions those court decisions and seeks remedial action.

"Regrettably, this means that the condition set out above for us to enter or continue discussions with CCFC has not been met. The ball is therefore back in the court of CCFC's owners.

"We believe it is in everyone's interest that Coventry City play their home games at the Ricoh Arena, and we would urge the owners of Coventry City to take steps to make that happen."

Talks continued, not talks started. As they'd begun, it probably made some sense to see what could still be done. Wasps position is very clear though.

The fact they've proceeded doesn't imply the EU think something is wrong they think it's worth investigating if something is.

You continue to be steadfast in trying to avoid putting any blame on SISU though Nick. They submitted the complaint, knowing full well it would be impactful. They hid the complaint hoping to get a deal signed before it became public.

People who've called it "legals": Fisher, Boddy, Eastwood, Rupert Lowe MEP and many, many more.
People who are clinging to it not being legals, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and failing to understand it makes no difference whatsover: MalcSB

People who've called it "legals": Fisher, Boddy, Eastwood, Rupert Lowe MEP and many, many more.
People who are clinging to it not being legals, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and failing to understand it makes no difference whatsover: MalcSB

its not just me who do not see the EC investigation as just legals.
That includes wasps
“Wasps stated their position publicly yesterday, reiterating their previous opposition to legal action and now adding their opposition to any other action around the sale of the stadium in 2014, and their opinions surrounding the EU complaint.”

That indicates that wasps see this as action other than legal action.

 

[Nick]

This argument is bollocks. You could have said the same about the JR (and probably did, many did) and we spent five years to find out there was nothing to it.

You know the legals are a negotiating tactic and not an honest issue, I know that, Wasps know that, the council know that.

Why lie? Or at the very least, why carry on with a weak argument that’s been repeatedly proven incorrect by reality?

Do we need to go over the problems with going through court even if innocent? Again?

So frustrating to see this nonsense still being spouted as a killer argument after it’s been beaten to death.

It only gets to court if the EU think there's reason for it because of CCC doing something wrong.

The case is EU v CCC.

 

[shmmeee]

It only gets to court if the EU think there's reason for it because of CCC doing something wrong.

The case is EU v CCC.

And when it’s not? And Sisu want to appeal? You’ll back that then I assume. And when that fails and it’s a civil suit? And the next thing? And the next thing?

Where’s the line for you Nick? What would convince you that the law suits are vexatious and not a righteous crusade for justice?

 

[Orca]

Because it isnt. I can only assume you are a lib dem and only beleive things when they agree withwhat you want it to.
If you cant prove there is an ongoing case them surely there isnt any legal action.

So Fisher and Boddy both calling them legals isn't enough for you?

 

[Nick]

And when it’s not? And Sisu want to appeal? You’ll back that then I assume. And when that fails and it’s a civil suit? And the next thing? And the next thing?

Where’s the line for you Nick? What would convince you that the law suits are vexatious and not a righteous crusade for justice?

See below:

In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena, in order to allow talks about extending our agreement at the Ricoh Arena to take place.

 

[Orca]

It only gets to court if the EU think there's reason for it because of CCC doing something wrong.

The case is EU v CCC.

That's not correct. It only gets to a court if the EU judgement against a breach of competition laws is appealed.
Competition: opening markets to competition - European Commission
What are the consequences?

The Commission investigates whether companies are violating or could potentially violate the competition rules. This means it can act either before or after the rules are broken, in order to safeguard a competitive market. As a result of the Commission’s investigations, it can decide to prohibit a certain conduct, require remedial action or impose a fine, depending on the situation. So the Commission acts both to prevent and to punish competition violations in the EU. The EU competition laws are directly applicable in all the countries in the EU. National competition authorities can apply EU rules as well as their own competition laws.

Anticompetitive conduct must have an effect on trade between EU countries for the Commission to be able to act. The Commission has strong competition law enforcement powers, given to it under the treaties by the EU countries. Its decisions are binding on both companies and national authorities that violate the rules, but the decisions can be appealed to the EU’s General Court and further (on points of law) to the Court of Justice. Companies and EU governments regularly lodge and sometimes succeed in appeals against Commission decisions.

 

[Orca]

See below:

They've never sued Wasps. Only CCC. Wasps would have to foot the bill though.

 

[Orca]

its not just me who do not see the EC investigation as just legals.
That includes wasps
“Wasps stated their position publicly yesterday, reiterating their previous opposition to legal action and now adding their opposition to any other action around the sale of the stadium in 2014, and their opinions surrounding the EU complaint.”

That indicates that wasps see this as action other than legal action.

It's an investigation into a possible breach of competition law. Thererefore a legal process.
Competition: opening markets to competition - European Commission

 

[Grendel]

They've never sued Wasps. Only CCC. Wasps would have to foot the bill though.

They will not be taking the action if it was deemed by the Eu to go to court. It’s a complaint raised by an independent body in effect

 

[shmmeee]

See below:

Answer the question.

Theoretically Sisu could be using for the rest of our lifetimes in one form or another. How many years do you support CCFC playing outside of Coventry to achieve “justice”?

It blows my mind that you have such an issue with local government that you’ll see your football club slowly die to get one over on them.

There comes a time where we as fans have to say enough is enough, you’ve tried this tactic and it’s failed. Time to step up and either swallow your pride and negotiate a deal or crack on with building a ground or fuck off so someone who will can do it.

 

[Nick]

That's not correct. It only gets to a court if the EU judgement against a breach of competition laws is appealed.
Competition: opening markets to competition - European Commission
What are the consequences?

The Commission investigates whether companies are violating or could potentially violate the competition rules. This means it can act either before or after the rules are broken, in order to safeguard a competitive market. As a result of the Commission’s investigations, it can decide to prohibit a certain conduct, require remedial action or impose a fine, depending on the situation. So the Commission acts both to prevent and to punish competition violations in the EU. The EU competition laws are directly applicable in all the countries in the EU. National competition authorities can apply EU rules as well as their own competition laws.

Anticompetitive conduct must have an effect on trade between EU countries for the Commission to be able to act. The Commission has strong competition law enforcement powers, given to it under the treaties by the EU countries. Its decisions are binding on both companies and national authorities that violate the rules, but the decisions can be appealed to the EU’s General Court and further (on points of law) to the Court of Justice. Companies and EU governments regularly lodge and sometimes succeed in appeals against Commission decisions.

Yes, so it only gets to court if they have breached the law (done something wrong).

Nice attempt at spin though.

 

[Orca]

Jumping on as many posts as you can on a football forum trying to excuse them for it while not bothering with football kind of makes it obvious.

I have never said you work for the council or anything like it, please stop talking shit.

I've explained to you before Nick - I don't come on here to talk about the football - I have other places where I do that. My friends and family who attend StA aren't interested in the politics, so I don't discuss that with them I do chat to them about the game though. I use twitter and this site for the things they don't care about. If you're saying I'm not worthy as a user of your site because I don't fit your criteria of what a 'good user' should do, you should delete me from your site.

 

[Nick]

Answer the question.

Theoretically Sisu could be using for the rest of our lifetimes in one form or another. How many years do you support CCFC playing outside of Coventry to achieve “justice”?

It blows my mind that you have such an issue with local government that you’ll see your football club slowly die to get one over on them.

There comes a time where we as fans have to say enough is enough, you’ve tried this tactic and it’s failed. Time to step up and either swallow your pride and negotiate a deal or crack on with building a ground or fuck off so someone who will can do it.

Maybe if you try to read what I posted....

The funny thing is, it isn't only the football club that have issues with our local government is it?

I will see the situation season on season and judge it then and make a decision. It's as simple as that.

 

[shmmeee]

its not just me who do not see the EC investigation as just legals.
That includes wasps
“Wasps stated their position publicly yesterday, reiterating their previous opposition to legal action and now adding their opposition to any other action around the sale of the stadium in 2014, and their opinions surrounding the EU complaint.”

That indicates that wasps see this as action other than legal action.

No it doesn’t. It’s the equivalent to when I was a kid and I had a mate who insisted everyone took off their shoes when they came into his house.

Another mate thought it was hilarious to refuse and when challenged say “I’m wearing trainers not shoes”. Until the first guy started saying “take off your shoes *and trainers*!”

It’s just responding to a pedantic twat in kind.

 

[Nick]

I've explained to you before Nick - I don't come on here to talk about the football - I have other places where I do that. My friends and family who attend StA aren't interested in the politics, so I don't discuss that with them I do chat to them about the game though. I use twitter and this site for the things they don't care about. If you're saying I'm not worthy as a user of your site because I don't fit your criteria of what a 'good user' should do, you should delete me from your site.

Of course you do.

Just the same as "Chris W" does.

 

[Orca]

Yes, so it only gets to court if they have breached the law (done something wrong).

Nice attempt at spin though.

How is it spin? It's from the EU commission website. It's a process to determine whether a law has been breached. You know, looking at the legal implications of a public body to determine if they've broken the law. Says it there in black and white. Not all legal judgements are passed in a court.

 

[shmmeee]

Maybe if you try to read what I posted....

The funny thing is, it isn't only the football club that have issues with our local government is it?

I will see the situation season on season and judge it then and make a decision. It's as simple as that.

Nice deflection. So you’d be happy for us never to return to Cov as long as the people that empty the bins eventually get fucked over?

To use a football analogy, you’re like a ref who never books for repeated fouling below the yellow card level because “I see the situation on a foul by foul basis and judge it then”.

Fine if you never want to look up at the bigger picture, not all of us can be so blinkered.

At least you’re honest about where your priorities lie. Personally the club means more to me than some petty political vendetta.